That being said, it will likely be a Democrat who wins the special election in 5 months. The Democrats here in Massachusetts are going to be tripping over themselves to get the nod and it will be funny as hell to watch. There is talk of Vicki Kennedy (Ted's widow), Joe Kennedy (Bobby's son), and at least two current U. S. Representatives.......Should things come out well, the only one with a chance is Steven Lynch thus far. A former iron worker who busted his *** to get where he is, unlike the other trust-funded maroons that make up the Mass. Democratic entourage to D.C.

Seeing as how the Republican party here in the People's Republik is virtually nonexistant it is going to be all Democrat all the time. And the twits in the Boston media are going to trip over themselves fawning over these bunch of morons.

Because letting the people actually vote and decide who they want to represent them is just so stupid...

Funny how that tune has changed in the last couple of days. All of a sudden a whole bunch of Democrats are screaming they need to appoint someone now. I think it is funny that their own stupidity came back to bite them in the foot. Realistically, there should be a short term appointment with a special election within 120 days.

And you think the Dem majority state is going to elect a GOP replacement? I'll take that bet.

You never know, up until recently they had a Republican governor, which is why the dems passed this stupid law. As they say, what goes around comes around. Too bad democrats don't have the fore thought to put good laws in place.

Bzzzzztt.....Bush had a GOP majority congress for six of eight years in House, and five of eight years in the Senate.

None of which changes the fact that Clinton had a DJIA that went through the roof, the DJIA tanked under Bush, and is on it's way up with Obama.

None of the spin you try to apply changes any of those facts.

I find it funny that you point to he DJIA as the indicator of the nations economic health, yet Obama pays no attention to it.

Funny how that tune has changed in the last couple of days. All of a sudden a whole bunch of Democrats are screaming they need to appoint someone now. I think it is funny that their own stupidity came back to bite them in the foot. Realistically, there should be a short term appointment with a special election within 120 days.

While their intentions were less than honorable, I think it is a great system. Keeps the politics and playing favors to a minimum. It sucks not to have a representative while you wait for an election, but I think that everyone should be elected, not appointed. Look what happened with the seat that Obama left for the Governor to fill.

Maybe have a temporary replacement appointed by a governor until the election 3 months later.

I would like to evaluate Pres. Obama if he was white, and then evaluate his "leadership skills."

Is he a great orator? absolutely. is he intelligent? absolutely. does he surpass Bush in this area. absolutely.

HOWEVER, many people voted for him BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. not because they agreed with him, not because of what he said, but because he was BLACK. in fact, according to many people, they wouldn't vote or support him if he was a white man.

So I do think many did vote for him as a black man, not for him as a first term senator from chicago with no executive leadership experience at all.

As for the question as hand, is he a great leader? well, what has he done? in fact, what does any president done? he is surrounded by smart people and experts in every field. how much stuff does he do, vs get done regardless of who was in that office?

the DJIA rises. great. would it have happened if someone else was president? probably. the housing market bounces back. would it have anyway (considering every market goes up and down)? What has he actually done, as an individual, that gets credited to him personally, instead of all his advisers and experts?

As for the question as hand, is he a great leader? well, what has he done? in fact, what does any president done? he is surrounded by smart people and experts in every field. how much stuff does he do, vs get done regardless of who was in that office?

the DJIA rises. great. would it have happened if someone else was president? probably. the housing market bounces back. would it have anyway (considering every market goes up and down)? What has he actually done, as an individual, that gets credited to him personally, instead of all his advisers and experts?

Good point. Being a good president and being a great leader are different questions.

I think the real answer is that a definitive answer has not yet presented itself. In some cases, it's not obvious until after a president has served.

HOWEVER, many people voted for him BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK. not because they agreed with him, not because of what he said, but because he was BLACK. in fact, according to many people, they wouldn't vote or support him if he was a white man.

So I do think many did vote for him as a black man, not for him as a first term senator from Chicago with no executive leadership experience at all.

For those voters so shallow to vote based on race, far more of them voted for Hussein because of race than voted for McCain.

55% of white voters voted for Hussein, while 95% of black voters for him.

Imagine the public outcry and incessant whining had only 5% of white voters supported Hussein.

Accusations about people opposing Hussein because of his race are not without merit, but it ignores the glaring fact that far more support him, based solely on race, than oppose him, based solely on race.

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

the DJIA rises. great. would it have happened if someone else was president? probably. the housing market bounces back. would it have anyway (considering every market goes up and down)? What has he actually done, as an individual, that gets credited to him personally, instead of all his advisers and experts?

Really? After he was sworn in, the market dropped to about 6,500. More than one pundit was blaming him for that fall as a sign the market was expressing its lack of confidence in his administration. One Fox pundit (I forget which) stated this was just the first sign of him being a one term president after only five weeks. Jim Cramer on Mad Money referred to him as the great "wealth destroyer."

Now the DJIA is up almost 50% from that low point. Yet none of those pundits who believed he was the cause of the decline will now say he is the cause of the gain in value.

Which is it?

Someone, somewhere acted in a manner to get folks to have confidence in the market. And start spending money again to get the economy moving.

55% of white voters voted for Hussein, while 95% of black voters for him.

Imagine the public outcry and incessant whining had only 5% of white voters supported Hussein.

Accusations about people opposing Hussein because of his race are not without merit, but it ignores the glaring fact that far more support him, based solely on race, than oppose him, based solely on race.

African Americans have always overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic Candidate:

2004: 88%
2000: 90%
1996: 86%
1992: 87%
1988: 89%

If you take these numbers in consideration then you could argue that 5% of a demographic voted based on race. The other 90% voted for the Democrat, like they always have, regardless of color.

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. --Norman Mattoon Thomas, 6 time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

While their intentions were less than honorable, I think it is a great system. Keeps the politics and playing favors to a minimum. It sucks not to have a representative while you wait for an election, but I think that everyone should be elected, not appointed. Look what happened with the seat that Obama left for the Governor to fill.

Maybe have a temporary replacement appointed by a governor until the election 3 months later.

Personally, I think the current system where the voter gets to speak is much better. Yes, you have no representative for a few months. Life isn't always fair. What makes me boil is how the idiot democrats change their tune depending on who is governor. That tells you right there that they aren't looking out for ht people but rather their own self interest. SCUMBAGS!!!!

I hope this helps in your understanding of how laws are made. Just in case you don't know, a spending bill is a law.

If that is your simplistic, childish view that would explain a lot. The president sets direction and makes that direction clear, at least a good one does. There is also a lot of give and take and bargaining that goes on. The president will agree to sign a bill if he can gain support for something he wants. There is WAY MORE too it than you suggest. Oh yea, and by the way, not all bills originate becuase the folks want it. A lot (actually most) of the bills originate becuase of some goof ball special interest group. You are a clown Charlie Brown

African Americans have always overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic Candidate:

2004: 88%
2000: 90%
1996: 86%
1992: 87%
1988: 89%

If you take these numbers in consideration then you could argue that 5% of a demographic voted based on race. The other 90% voted for the Democrat, like they always have, regardless of color.

Yes, I have stated this in the past. I have often wondered if that is the case because democrats support give aways and social programs more than republicans. There must be a reason why one ethnicity would be so overwhelmingly in favor of one part over another. I suspect that most of those inner-city people voting for the democrats could care less about environmental issues, abortion, and other such issues.

Funny how that tune has changed in the last couple of days. All of a sudden a whole bunch of Democrats are screaming they need to appoint someone now. I think it is funny that their own stupidity came back to bite them in the foot. Realistically, there should be a short term appointment with a special election within 120 days.

Why a short term appointment? The elected officials of MA decided it was more important to have a vote than an appointment, so that's what it should be. Too bad if they miss the all-important, life-altering vote on health care.

I hope this helps in your understanding of how laws are made. Just in case you don't know, a spending bill is a law.

No, a spending bill is a bill until it is signed by the president...THEN it becomes a law. It still wouldn't end up on his desk until BOTH houses of Congress pass it. But that's OK...EVERYTHING bad is Bush's fault.

Someone, somewhere acted in a manner to get folks to have confidence in the market. And start spending money again to get the economy moving.

If not the president, who?

I know this might be a new theory for you, given your economically challenged education, but capitalist markets have a natural ebb and flow. Maybe the natural correction was followed by a natural uptick?

Why a short term appointment? The elected officials of MA decided it was more important to have a vote than an appointment, so that's what it should be. Too bad if they miss the all-important, life-altering vote on health care.

The short term appointment would be the ideal situation. As it is, they have no Senator for the next 145 days or more. These are the rules the democrats wanted so they should live by them

I know this might be a new theory for you, given your economically challenged education, but capitalist markets have a natural ebb and flow. Maybe the natural correction was followed by a natural uptick?

This is very much true. It is interesting to watch the news describe the market. Numerous times we get bad economic news and the markets go up. I have seen numerous times where there has been good economic news and the markets drop. Fact of the matter is the folks doing the buying and selling of stocks are researching companies and looking for the best deals. It has nothing to do with what the president, congress or other false indicators may say.

I know this might be a new theory for you, given your economically challenged education, but capitalist markets have a natural ebb and flow. Maybe the natural correction was followed by a natural uptick?

And maybe it was the result of the president instilling confidence in the market.